Report: California Continues To Spend a Lot of Money on Poor Quality Roads
Despite the enactment of a $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill in 2021, which included $350 billion for federal highway programs, America's highway quality and spending in recent years haven't seen major changes.
There's been a small uptick in spending, a small uptick in highway quality, and a small decrease in congestion. But a revolution on America's roads this is not.
"Things are pretty much steady," says Baruch Feigenbaum, the senior managing director of transportation policy at the Reason Foundation (which publishes this website) and lead author of its latest annual highway report.
The 2025 report ranks state highway systems across a range of metrics, including capital and maintenance spending, rural and urban pavement quality, traffic congestion, bridge quality, and safety.
Similar to reports in recent years, North Carolina and Virginia continue to be top performers, respectively ranking first and fourth on this year's report. (Virginia was ranked first on last year's report.)
Both states scored high on pavement quality and relatively low highway spending. Feigenbaum chalks this up to these states using quantitative metrics to select highway projects and having dedicated maintenance units within their departments of transportation.
States like California that rely less on more politicized processes to select projects tend to rank much lower on the report. Despite being one of the highest spending states, it has some of the worst pavement quality, worst traffic congestion, and an uninspiring safety record.
"You can spend above average if everything else in your system is good and still get an excellent ranking," says Feigenbaum, pointing to Utah (which scored eighth on the report) as an example. The state's spending is on the high side, but it also ranks highly on pavement quality, safety, and congestion.
States like California and New Jersey both spend a lot of money for no apparent improvement in performance.
Feigenbaum gives a couple of reasons why the infrastructure law passed during the Biden administration has failed to make a noticeable impact on the country's highways.
The past administration had been relatively slow at spending highway dollars and the data from the 2025 highway report are from 2022. The infrastructure bill was also primarily nonhighway spending.
And as The Economist noted back in 2023, the Biden administration's profligacy was self-defeating. While the amount of appropriated infrastructure dollars increased a lot, so did inflation (itself largely a result of pandemic-era government spending). The net result was a real decline in infrastructure spending.
Early on in the pandemic, there were fears that a post-COVID return to the office mixed with a collapse in people taking public transit would result in spiking urban congestion.
The Reason report finds that that hasn't been the case generally.
Transit ridership is down 30 percent from pre-pandemic levels, according to the latest federal report on ridership trends.
But this year's Reason highway report also shows congestion falling generally, driven by a larger decrease in morning traffic congestion and mitigated slightly by increases in daytime traffic and evening congestion.
The report's congestion data is from 2022, but more recent measures of national traffic patterns also show a general decline in congestion. The August 2024 report from the Federal Highway Administration on urban congestion trends (which relies on data from 2023) shows congestion falling that year as well—although it has increased in some individual metro areas.
Feigenbaum says this reflects the post-pandemic rise of more remote work and more flexible office hours.
The post Report: California Continues To Spend a Lot of Money on Poor Quality Roads appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Christine Van Geyn: Do police have the right to peer at you in your car with a drone?
Can police use a drone with a zoom lens to peer into the interior of vehicles stopped at red lights? Can police enter a home's private driveway and look in the windows of vehicles? Can the government track the cellphone location data of millions of Canadians to track their movements? And can a private foreign company scour the internet collecting photos of Canadians for use in facial recognition technology that is sold to police? These questions are not hypotheticals; they are real live issues in Canadian law. We are living in the mass surveillance era. But many Canadians do not have a thorough understanding of how far surveillance goes, or what the limits on it are, or whether our legal protections are adequate. The police in Kingston, Ont., are ticketing drivers at red lights for merely touching or holding their cellphones based on evidence collected by a drone. The Supreme Court recently heard a case about police entering a private driveway and not just looking in a truck window, but opening the door and collecting evidence — all without a warrant. The Alberta Court of Kings Bench just considered a case involving the facial recognition technology of Clearview AI. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Canadian government was tracking the cellphone location data of 33 million Canadians. After the Trudeau government invoked the Emergencies Act, the government ordered the freezing of bank accounts of a police-compiled 'blacklist' of demonstrators, which was distributed by the government to a variety of financial institutions and even lobby groups. What these cases are demonstrating is that we have entered the era of mass surveillance, and Canada's legal protections are inadequate. First, Canada's privacy legislation is outdated. Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne has said we are at a 'pivotal time' for privacy rights in Canada. Former Ontario Privacy Commissioner Dr. Ann Cavoukian has also called for updates to Canadian privacy laws, 'so they apply to all data, including anonymized data.' Much has changed since the current federal privacy legislation was drafted in the early 2000s, but efforts to modernize this law died when Parliament was prorogued. Second, when it comes to state intrusions, the concept of privacy may be inadequate. Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Supreme Court has interpreted this right to mean the protection of a person's 'reasonable expectations of privacy' against state intrusions. The notion of 'reasonable expectations of privacy' has become a mantra in Section 8 jurisprudence. But some academics have said that in the era of mass surveillance, this guiding principle is an inadequate gatekeeper. In a lecture for the Canadian Constitution Foundation's new free course on privacy rights, Osgoode Hall Law professor François Tanguay-Renaud proposes a thought experiment that reveals the inadequacy of 'privacy' as an organizing principle. What if the police were recording people on the street, with drones following people and recording their movements as they went about their day, zooming in on their cellphones and recording their conversations? In such a scenario, where people are in plain view, privacy is an inadequate concept to limit what we all see intuitively as oppressive state conduct. At one time, this hypothetical might have been considered far-fetched. Today it is eerily similar to the Kingston police drone scenario. In Kingston, police are using a drone to take aerial images peering into cars and zooming in on cellphones. Those drivers do have reasonable expectations of privacy inside their cars, but what would limit this police conduct if they surveilled citizens on sidewalks or parks, where they were in plain view without those privacy expectations? A principled line must be drawn between things done in plain sight that police can view and constant surveillance using enhanced technology. It may not be possible to draw that line on the basis of the existence or not of 'reasonable expectations of privacy.' There are other values that could serve as guiding or informing principles for Section 8. There is nothing in the text of Section 8 that mandates the gatekeeper of the right be 'reasonable expectations of privacy' rather than another interest, like dignity, liberty, security, anonymity, public confidence in the administration of justice, and many more. Indeed, American jurisprudence has been moving away from the concept of 'reasonable expectations of privacy' as the sole guiding principle for their 4th Amendment. To meet the challenges of the surveillance era, it is well past time for Parliament and the provincial legislatures to update privacy laws. But as recent police conduct shows, it's time for our Section 8 jurisprudence to be revisited as well, to meet the emerging challenges of the surveillance state. National Post Christine Van Geyn is the litigation director for the Canadian Constitutional Foundation. Canadians who want to learn more about their privacy rights in Canada can sign up for the Canadian Constitution Foundation's free course at Opinion: In 2020 the world shut down, and Canadians lost their privacy rights Facial recognition tool used by RCMP deemed illegal mass surveillance of unwitting Canadians
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
This week in Trumponomics: The looming import shortage
Few people pay attention to import and export data, which are among the weedier metrics of the economy's health. But these wonky numbers are giving some startling insights into the challenges everyday shoppers may be facing in a month or two or three. Imports plummeted in April, falling by 20% from the prior month. That's the biggest decline in data going back to 1992. It's considerably worse than the drop in imports at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Does anybody remember what shopping was like during COVID? Aside from the masks and sanitizer, there were widespread product shortages followed by soaring inflation. People didn't mind at first, since many were stuck at home without much to do. But inflation got quite irksome after a couple of years, and it sank Joe Biden's presidency, along with Democratic electoral odds in 2024. We're not yet facing COVID-style shortages. But we might be if President Trump's trade war drags on through the fall and summer. Imports plunged in April because that's when Trump started slapping new import taxes on practically every product entering the United States. So far, Trump has raised the average tariff tax on imports from 2.5% to about 18%. Read more: What Trump's tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet Prices haven't shot up yet because many of the American companies that import goods saw this coming and stocked up ahead of the Trump tariffs. Imports jumped by a record amount in January and were elevated for the first quarter as a whole. Swollen inventories have kept supplies ample and prices in check. If April represents the new trend line, however, a sharp drop in imports will inevitably lead to higher prices and some shortages. 'The impact of tariffs will continue to reverse progress on returning inflation to 2%,' Goldman Sachs explained in a recent analysis. 'Our forecast reflects a sharp acceleration in most core goods categories, where tariff-related increases in prices will be most acute in consumer electronics, autos, and apparel.' The firm expects overall inflation to rise from 2.3% now to 3.5% by importers are handling the Trump tariffs in a variety of ways. Some are taking normal delivery of goods and paying the higher taxes. We know that because tariff revenue collected by the government soared in April and May. The higher cost of imports will eventually make its way to consumers via higher prices. Many other importers have canceled or postponed orders, hoping that Trump will make trade deals and future tariffs will be lower than current ones. They're also watching two high-profile cases in which courts have said some of Trump's tariffs are illegal, while leaving them in place until appeals play out. Trump himself controls much of what happens next. He has set a July 9 deadline for dozens of countries to initiate trade concessions, or else a punishing round of 'reciprocal' tariffs will go into effect, on top of those Trump has already imposed. Some business owners hope for greater clarity by then, though the July 9 deadline is arbitrary and Trump could change it. Read more: The latest news and updates on Trump's tariffs Once current inventories are gone, the rest of 2025 could be rocky. 'Our perspective in terms of how this will affect manufacturers and workers is that we'll see a replay of the initial COVID shock,' Jason Judd, executive director of the Global Labor Institute at Cornell University, told Yahoo Finance. 'It may not be as severe, depending on the distribution of the pain. If Trump comes back with a 40% tariff on apparel, that would feel like a COVID-era shock.' Trump, for his part, acts like everything is hunky-dory under his watch. 'America is hot!' he said on social media on June 6. 'Border is secure, prices are down. Wages are up!' That came after the employment report for May showed the economy created a middling 139,000 new jobs. Many economists, however, think America is cooling. The pace of job growth has slowed this year, the economy technically shrank in the first quarter, and the stock market has been flat in 2025. Trump's tariffs already seem to be punishing the manufacturing sector, which lost 8,000 jobs in May and is in a three-month slump. If that's 'hot,' a cold Trump economy is likely to be miserable. Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Bluesky and X: @rickjnewman. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices.


Black America Web
2 hours ago
- Black America Web
Dave Chappelle Reflects On 2016 Trump ‘SNL' Speech
Source: Arturo Holmes / Getty For comedian Dave Chappelle, the opening monologue he gave as the host of Saturday Night Live after the 2016 presidential election isn't something he regrets. He had the chance to reflect on it during a conversation with comedian Mo Amer for the Actors on Actors series for Variety. 'I haven't watched it in a while, but I remember it fondly,' Chappelle said at the 27-minute mark of the conversation, which was shared Wednesday (June 4) after Amer asked him about his perspective on it from back then to now. The monologue went viral, as Chappelle declared that 'an internet troll' had won the White House, also pointing out his history of sexual assault. He would then segue into how he felt after former President Barack Obama won in 2008. 'And it made me very happy about the prospects of our country,' he said then. 'So, in that spirit, I'm wishing Donald Trump luck. And I'm going to give him a chance. And we, the historically disenfranchised, demand that he give us one, too.''Oh, I remember that part,' Chappelle said. 'You know what? I look at it like a photograph. That's what it felt like in that moment. Now, if it ages well or not, I don't get mad if I look at a picture because it's not today. That's what it was at that time.' He continued, 'You might look at an old set and cringe, but you could just cringe because of how you were at that time. And in that sense, I'm fine with it.' Chappelle's conversation with Amer is one of the rare moments he's opened up for media – he has declined direct interviews in the wake of brushback from jokes he made against the transgender community in his 2021 Netflix special The Closer . But he and the Palestinian comedian bonded during the COVID-19 pandemic, making this a keen opportunity for the two to talk about comedy and their perspectives on the current times particularly with Amer's hit Netflix show. 'As you know, I notoriously don't like to do press,' Chappelle said, 'but today I wouldn't have missed, because it's you.' Check out the entire conversation above. SEE ALSO Dave Chappelle Reflects On 2016 Trump 'SNL' Speech was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE